IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eoh/wpaper/wpaper-003.html

How much is the (labelled) pig? Effectiveness of and willingness to pay for the German animal husbandry label

Author

Listed:
  • Birgit Stoltenberg

    (Nürnberg Institut für Marktentscheidungen)

  • Vladimir Manewitsch

    (Nürnberg Institut für Marktentscheidungen)

  • Matthias Unfried

    (Nürnberg Institut für Marktentscheidungen)

Abstract

The German Minister of Food and Agriculture has initiated a mandatory state label for animal husbandry, revealing livestock production conditions. This study investigates consumer preferences and their willingness to pay price premiums for pork depending on the different husbandry conditions indicated by this label. We tested the originally planned label as well as a modification with additional information on the available living space for the animal, a modification with additional interpretive information (i.e. with colours indicating how a product scores on animal husbandry standards), and a combination of both modifications. Data were obtained from a representative online discrete choice experiment (N = 2,015) in Germany and analysed using random parameter logit modelling. Our results show that the label proposed by the government is effective in increasing the willingness to pay for meat produced with higher standards except the `organic' level. Furthermore, we show that indicating a ranking of husbandry conditions could further increase the willingness to pay for meat produced with higher husbandry standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Birgit Stoltenberg & Vladimir Manewitsch & Matthias Unfried, 2023. "How much is the (labelled) pig? Effectiveness of and willingness to pay for the German animal husbandry label," NIM Working Paper wpaper-003, Nürnberg Institut für Marktentscheidungen e.V..
    • Handle: RePEc:eoh:wpaper:wpaper-003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nim.org/fileadmin/PUBLIC/3_NIM_Publikationen/NIM_Working_Paper/NIM_wp_animal_husbandry_stoltenberg_manewitsch_unfried_20240408.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2023
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucie L. Sirieix & Marion M. Delanchy & Hervé H. Remaud & Lydia L. Zepeda & Patricia P. Gurviez, 2013. "Consumers' perceptions of individual and combined sustainable food labels: a UK pilot investigation," Post-Print hal-01000413, HAL.
    2. Alexandra Heidel & Christian Hagist & Christian Schlereth, 2021. "Pricing through health apps generated data—Digital dividend as a game changer: Discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-14, July.
    3. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    4. Jackson, Christopher, 2011. "Multi-State Models for Panel Data: The msm Package for R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 38(i08).
    5. Nelson, Phillip, 1970. "Information and Consumer Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(2), pages 311-329, March-Apr.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    7. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    8. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2011. "On mandatory labeling of animal welfare attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 430-437, June.
    9. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    10. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    11. Donato, Carmela & Adıgüzel, Feray, 2022. "Visual complexity of eco-labels and product evaluations in online setting: Is simple always better?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December.
    14. Jing Song & Mhairi K Brown & Monique Tan & Graham A MacGregor & Jacqui Webster & Norm R C Campbell & Kathy Trieu & Cliona Ni Mhurchu & Laura K Cobb & Feng J He, 2021. "Impact of color-coded and warning nutrition labelling schemes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-28, October.
    15. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ramona Weinrich & Annabell Franz & Achim Spiller, 2016. "Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 18(2), pages 155-172.
    2. Saunders, Caroline M. & Guenther, Meike & Kaye-Blake, William & Miller, Sini & Tait, Peter R., 2010. "Consumer attitudes towards sustainability attributes on food labels," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 96944, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Whittle, Colin, 2022. "Household acceptability of energy efficiency policies in the European Union: Policy characteristics trade-offs and the role of trust in government and environmental identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    5. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.
    6. Fabienne Chameroy & Jean-Louis Chandon, 2011. "Are All Labels Ethical? [Les labels sont-ils tous éthiques ?]," Post-Print hal-02092068, HAL.
    7. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    8. Bester, Helmut & Ouyang, Yaofu, 2018. "Optimal procurement of a credence good under limited liability," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 96-129.
    9. Charity, Nabwire Ephamia Juma, "undated". "Economic Analysis Of Consumers’ Awareness And Willingness To Pay For Geographical Indicators And Other Quality Attributes Of Honey In Kenya," Research Theses 265574, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    10. Haucap, Justus, 2017. "The rule of law and the emergence of market exchange: A new institutional economic perspective," DICE Discussion Papers 276, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    11. Sophie Bienenstock, 2016. "Consumer education: why the market doesn’t work," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 237-262, October.
    12. Thai, Thao & Lancsar, Emily & Spinks, Jean & Freeman, Christopher & Chen, Gang, 2024. "Understanding Australian pharmacy degree holders’ job preferences through the lens of motivation-hygiene theory," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    13. Langinier Corinne & Babcock Bruce A., 2008. "Agricultural Production Clubs: Viability and Welfare Implications," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-31, December.
    14. Onozaka, Yuko & Saue, Vegar Veseth & Costanigro, Marco, "undated". "The Moderating Effect of Heterogeneous Beliefs on Consumer Preferences for a New Food Technology: The Case of Modified Atmospheric Packaging," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274068, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Giovanni Anania & Rosanna Nisticò, 2004. "Public Regulation as a Substitute for Trust in Quality Food Markets: What if the Trust Substitute cannot be Fully Trusted?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(4), pages 681-701, December.
    16. Grolleau, Gilles & Caswell, Julie A., 2006. "Interaction Between Food Attributes in Markets: The Case of Environmental Labeling," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Schaak, Henning & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2021. "Public Preferences for Pasture Landscapes and the Role of Scale Heterogeneity," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 70(03), January.
    18. Robert B. Ekelund & Mark Thornton, 2019. "Extreme Credence and Imaginary Goods," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 47(3), pages 361-371, September.
    19. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Steinrücken, Torsten, 2001. "Der Markt für politische Zitronen," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 20, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eoh:wpaper:wpaper-003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nürnberg Institut für Marktentscheidungen e.V. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nimnbde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.